FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SOCHEATA CHAING, No. 11-73414
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-195-547
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 15, 2013**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Socheata Chaing, a native and citizen of Cambodia, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for adjustment
of status and finding that she had filed a frivolous asylum application. Our
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s findings of fact and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
The agency properly determined that Chaing is inadmissible to the United
States because she willfully misrepresented that she was a member of the
Cambodian Freedom Fighters in her asylum application and before the asylum
officer to obtain an immigration benefit. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary decision to deny
Chaing’s application for a waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i). See 8 U.S.C.
1252(a)(2)(B)(i); see also Corona-Mendez v. Holder, 593 F.3d 1143, 1146 (9th
Cir. 2010) (no court has jurisdiction to review any discretionary judgment
regarding waivers under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i), unless review of the petition involves
constitutional claims or questions of law).
Finally, the record does not compel reversal of the IJ’s determination that
Chaing filed a frivolous asylum application because: (1) contrary to Chaing’s
contention, she received notice of the consequences of filing a frivolous
application; (2) the IJ made specific findings that Chiang knowingly filed a
frivolous application; (3) the IJ’s frivolous findings were supported by a
2 11-73414
preponderance of the evidence; and (4) Chaing was given sufficient opportunity to
explain. See Ahir v. Mukasey, 527 F.3d 912, 917-19 (9th Cir. 2008); see also
Cheema v. Holder, 693 F.3d 1045, 1048-50 (9th Cir. 2012) (asylum application’s
written warning adequately notifies the applicant of the consequences of filing a
frivolous application).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 11-73414